Since our current view is limited through our knowledge, in this case it is our knowledge about magnetism, the only model we can come up with is the
iron nickel core theory. Not because someone has actual proof for it, but because we can't think of a better theory. Once we figure out that there
are other things which could create magnetic fields, or once we poke a hole deep enough and send a probe into the core of the earth, this theory might
be subject to change.

So I have a hard time dealing with people who try to lecture someone who has proposed an interesting alternative theory and smack them in the face
with "facts", that are in reality nothing more than theories as well, with the difference that there is some sort of "global consensus" in the so
called "scientific community" that this is the right theory and so they force it down other peoples throats. Can't have that.

And on a side note .. I have lost the last bit of respect for the "scientific community" which nowadays is nothing more but corporate R&D who are
being paid for certain outcomes, not for empiric research. Universities included.

But it is based on the structure of the Earth which is derived directly from seismic data. Seismic data is measurable, it is empirical. You are
claiming the opposite; that the structure of the Earth is derived from the dynamo theory.

BTW, you seem to be lacking in your understanding of what a scientific theory actually is. It is not something which is just made up. It is something
which is supported by evidence. In this case there is plenty of evidence that the dynamo theory is correct.

Even though my field of expertise is not in physics but in chemistry, I guess I have a vague understanding what a scientific theory relates to.

Since you seem to have slight difficulties differentiating facts from theories, I will explain it to you with a practical example:

FACT: Iron has a density of 7.86 g/cm3 @ 293 K

THEORY: There is a core of molten iron inside of the earth, generating a magnetic field.

Just because something resembles the density and seismic behaviour of molten iron, does not mean it indeed IS molten iron. How you can fail to
understand this simple concept is beyond me. I suggest you go ahead and read that link I did provide, especially the later parts of the article ( The
parts where they describe the magnetic fields of mercury which gives them quite a headache because according to their THEORY there shouldn't be one )
It's pretty interesting.

So again: A THEORY can be subject to change as soon as new empirical evidence is collected, while an established FACT can not.

You should start looking into the electric universe theory as well, it might change your perspective and open your mind for new ideas.

P.S. You have not answered which discipline you hold a degree in btw, I'm really curious. C'mon it's at least some sort of BOS i'nnit ?

These threads are always funny in the light of the fact that 60 years ago, when we thought we were on the cutting edge of science (we had, after all,
split the atom and killed millions with it), the scientific community (on the whole) emphatically believed two things: black holes were sci-fi
nonsense, and there must be a "Planet X" lumbering unseen in our solar system, because Mercury's orbits were so perturbed.

Edit to add:

Ironically, Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of black holes, even though they were predicted by his theory.

I'm confused by it though, high solar activity can cause quakes but so can low solar activity?

The two points contradict each other, wouldn't we be riddled with earthquakes all the time then? The sun is either active or it's not... Wait, the
earth is already constantly shaking... Must be the sun

I can understand Phages point here, using the above reasoning, turning the kettle on could be causing earthquakes... It's too ambiguous.

There needs to be specific quakes caused by specific solar events.

Otherwise we get stuck with people claiming that a big quake, like Japan last year was due to low solar activity and in the same breath claiming some
big quake was caused by high solar activity. Both could be true but there would be different mechanics to it, surely.

Need something more concrete.

You're a troll. After all its not the magnitude of the solar activity that causes the earthquakes its the interaction between solar activity and the
earths magnetic field which as anyone who isn't a troll knows occurs all the time. This means, in case it is too difficult to grasp, that earthquakes
occur because the sun shines.............

Quite true. However, given that there hundreds of thousands of species of hoofed animals and considerably more hoofed animals that are not zebras
statistics would say it is highly unlikely......especially in Finland! (Sorry Finland I used you in politics this afternoon so my brain has you in
the forefront)

So do you understand the link between empirical and statistical ? As opposed to "I like Zebras so that hoofed sound comes from a Zebra"........

On the subject of the sun , I wonder what your thoughts are on my idea that THE SUN IS THE OUTPUT OF a BLACKHOLE?

As suporting evidence, The cassini craft monitoring the sun photograghed an area next to the sun that was called a distortion of time space. Also
that japan tested for nuclear particles and FOUND NONE. Could these large eruptions acually be planets being sucked in the blackhole and ground down
to there basic parts providing fuel to the sun?

Originally posted by 00nunya00
These threads are always funny in the light of the fact that 60 years ago, when we thought we were on the cutting edge of science (we had, after all,
split the atom and killed millions with it), the scientific community (on the whole) emphatically believed two things: black holes were sci-fi
nonsense, and there must be a "Planet X" lumbering unseen in our solar system, because Mercury's orbits were so perturbed.

Edit to add:

Ironically, Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of black holes, even though they were predicted by his theory.

This event wasn't directed at earth. It is said not to have any effect on the earth. I was wondering though, since the ring orbit of the earth is
always present, how come things can't pull, tug, or energize it even though we are not at that spot where the event is. Seems to me that if a CME
hit it the ring on the other side of the sun and flexed the orbit, it could tug on the earth from both sides. I don't really know much about the
magnetic field that the earth orbits in other than that it is there. Sometimes knowing little about something brings fresh ideas.

Originally posted by 00nunya00
These threads are always funny in the light of the fact that 60 years ago, when we thought we were on the cutting edge of science (we had, after all,
split the atom and killed millions with it), the scientific community (on the whole) emphatically believed two things: black holes were sci-fi
nonsense, and there must be a "Planet X" lumbering unseen in our solar system, because Mercury's orbits were so perturbed.

Edit to add:

Ironically, Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of black holes, even though they were predicted by his theory.

13,000 years ago the Earth and Moon got very hot for a very short period of time. Both show micromelting of rocks, dated to 13,000 years ago. It
killed every sentient being on Earth and the planet was reseeded with sentient life about 12,000 years ago and all humans alive today are descendants
of that reseeding. We are being managed because the point is to grow the consciousness of all beings and we have a long way to go. Earth is a popular
spot to place the newly sentient because high adversity creates rapid consciousness development. It is a very long process. The great yogis tell us
that we start as mineral like rocks on some planet and then become plants, then animals and then sentient. We are at the very bottom of a very long
climb up the consciousness ladder for sentient beings. We have extremely low comprehension of everything. Grow you aura, help others and create love
and you will continue to climb the ladder.

This is the best place to find out about anything solar,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<
br />
This one's just as good!

And this one is the best place to find out about any earthquakes,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<
br />
This one's okay

And finally, this one tells about any geographical incidents but it's not too precise.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.